[1] In this matter the Applicants seek a final interdict against the Respondents interdicting them from demolishing any structure and/or removing any items fixed or unfixed on property described as Portion 1 situate at Rietfontein 61 IR (the property) and other ancillary relief. The Respondents are opposing the granting of the final order.

[2] This matter served before me in the Urgent Court on Friday the 19th September 2014. On that occasion only the Sixth Respondent entered appearance to oppose the application and filed a very brief affidavit in which he disassociated himself from the alleged actions complained of in the Applicants’ founding affidavit. The Sixth Respondent said that he was only a legal advisor and consultant of the Respondents. The Sixth Respondent requested that the application against him be dismissed with costs.

[3] Applicants’ counsel did not at that stage ask that Applicants be given an opportunity to consider the Sixth Respondent’s answering affidavit. In the absence of any contrary evidence I granted the Sixth Respondent’s request and dismissed the application against the Sixth Respondent with costs.

[4] Shortly after granting the rule nisi the Applicant filed an extensive supplementary affidavit in which he dealt with the Sixth Respondent’s involvement in the business affairs of the First, Second and Fifth Respondents. The affidavit clearly placed the Sixth Respondent at the centre of the happenings of the 17th and the 18th September 2014. Despite the application having been dismissed against him the Sixth Respondent filed a further answering affidavit which did not take the matter any further.